What does the ideal Democratic world look like?

[mattclearing]

I've been thinking about what it will take for Democrats to completely wrest back control of this country again for good.

It's amazing that we have not been able to find a truly winning messenger in the past 12 years since Clinton was elected.

The Republicans should never even be competing in an election, because their cause is a total loser.

"Vote for me, I want to siphon money away from all of you, diminish the services your government provides, and give your tax dollars to my friends through tax cuts and military contracts. Diplomacy is for suckers, we'd much rather sacrifice a few of you to get what we want. I'll tip you on my way out with a miniscule tax cut."

And yet they have the country pretty well split even.

I'm interested in promoting the cause more effectively.

When the Democratic rank and file spend as much time bitching about their leadership as they do the Republican leadership, there's a bit of a problem.

Dean is a step in the right direction, but I'm not satisfied.

I won't be happy until every Democrat truly believes in progress, sets impressive goals that don't rely on economic or military warfare, fights their heart out in the court of public opinion, and convinces the American people that it is in their interests to lend a hand to the cause.

I think we can have the country we want, but we have to be willing to stand up for it.

I think we need to start envisioning the world we want to live in, 10, 20, 30 years from now, start telling people about it, and start building it.

Knowing what it would look like is a good start.

Republicans know what their perfect world looks like, and have an uncanny knack for inflicting it upon us.

What does an ideal Democratic world look like?

And don't just tell me your issue.

Tell me why it's important, and give the practical effects in terms that people will understand and find desirable.

Bonus points for those who tell me why it's good for the whole world and human beings in general.

[benburch]

1. It would look a lot like Switzerland. nt.

[mattclearing]

3. Thanks for that.

I would hope it would look a lot like America, only different.

The question is how it would be different.

And why would living here be better in that future than it is now?

[FreedomAngel82]

20. My ideal world

is a world where we have a president who actually cares about us. He (someday she possibly) is financially responsible, health care for us all, poverty is basically gone, education is high (real education), people are able to live without fear, our country's boarders are safe and secure, there are no such things as "terror alerts," people are free to be who they are and marry the one they love (straight, gay, bi, trans) and people can practice their religion or not one without being pressured and it being involved in the government and not mattering if you're a politician. Here in my town we're having a mayor race and there was fliers going around that one of the canidates was an atheist. The local news interviewed this canidate and she said she was Christian and has been for most of her life and all that. The canidate who was slandered with her religious beliefs thinks it was from another canidate but he denied knowing about it. I hope one day it doesn't matter what a person's personal religious beliefs are (if they have them) and it doesn't interfer with their policies. I love what JFK said about this. He was a Catholic but not a Catholic politican. It should be like that.

[kaho]

23. ..where all the MP's ? 440 (senators) serve without pay....

...yet all the Ministers ? 25 (ie, senators with portfolios; health education, immigration etc) get well paid, and where;

political decision making is via citizen initiated referendum (democratic ballots);

military service is compulsory;

men of serving age keep their weapons and ammunition at home;

banking and secrecy laws are the strictest in the world.

[benburch]

25. Yes, like that!

Plus good chocolate.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mattclearing]

28. Not so sure I can agree with the military service part, but

I love the citizen initiated referendum bit.

You know what would be a great change? To remove Congress and the White House from the law-introduction/writing process.

Citizens write and introduce, then the Congress/White House vote up or down.

Lobbyists would be forced to own their own language that way.

[JDPriestly]

57. All should serve

If you made the sons and daughters of the wealthy and influential (think Jenna and Barbara) serve in the military rank and file for two years each, their parents would not be so war-crazy. Universal military service is a good idea. Wealthy and poor people, people of different religions and social views would have to work together as equals and rely on each other -- at least for those two years. That would unite our country in a positive way.

I would like to live in a country in which every man, woman and child had the necessary basics like a place to sleep at night, enough nutritional food to eat to stay healthy and health care and where people would be encouraged to love each other, not just compete for survival day in and day out until they finally die of failure and exhaustion. Basically, I'd like a country in which the values of shows like "You're Fired," and "Survivor" are considered disgusting and anti-social.

[applegrove]

2. To me it should be about liberal ideals. Openess to new ways of

doing things, the enlightenment, and putting room under the umbrella for all human beings. That means you do not kick the rich or the fundies out of your umbrella. You make them part of your plurality. When information comes in that Communism makes people poor you accept that. When information comes in that public health care is the most efficient, equitable way of delivery health care and keeping costs down you accept that. When information comes in that tells you that the world is changing and you are no longer an empire - you stare that straight in the face and teach your people how best to adjust to that.. without sending them on an expensive and delusional trip to patriot land that suits the needs of the elites.

Humans have been made wealthier by markets for 15000 years so that is a liberal thing. Corporations need to be regulated so that they are the tools of the people - that is a liberal thing. So you want your markets to be transparent, efficient and equitable (transfer of wealth every generation so that the rich have to "get real" at least once every 3 generations).

So all the information and all the science and all the stuff we learn about the environment. All that stuff is Liberal. All the international stuff is liberal. The Democrats are Liberals!!


So all the information and all the science and all the stuff we learn about the environment. All that stuff is Liberal. All the international stuff is liberal. The Democrats are Liberals!!

[mattclearing]

4. I like it.

Amazing. People put their faith in science and progress, and ride the wave where it takes us.

That sounds like a fantastic alternative to the current wave of 80's nostalgia that we seem to be caught up in.

I especially like your note to the wealthy that they should actually do something worthwhile every few generations besides robbing us blind with unjustified runaway profit margins.

If this is truly about not being lazy, the fact that the wealthy have money shouldn't mean their work is over.

They need to re-invest in the products of tomorrow, not spend their time trying to sell us different-colored versions of the same stuff (The George Foreman grill comes to mind).

[kaho]

11. Good piece applegrove....

...but may I attempt some fine tuning?

Your statement that "...communism makes people poor" is the crux of the issue. For "communism" you have to include and consider its spawned offspring of socialism. And while the howls may arise from the marxists on this site, the issue has to be addressed. Simply because communism/socialism/marxism is still the dragon with many heads. It exists and thrives in countries as diverse and wealthy as Sweden (proud to be called socialist, New Zealand - ditto, and Cuba). While this vagueness exists re the terminology of wealth distribution, unease and distrust will thrive in an ideologically competitive electorate. (And don't the Republicans love it!)

That is also why I find the term "progressive" such a turn off. It stinks of insider elitism, secrecy and deviousness.

Thanks for your common sense principles and the chance to participate in such an important debate.

[applegrove]

15. Cuba is communist and an example of how poor communism makes

one. Sweeden and New Zealand are not socialist countries. In Cuba the people are so poor that even with the tourist industry from Canada & Europe... some doctors resorted to prostitution to pay the bills and such. Communism is terrible at distributing things. It is no market at all. They have Liberal Democracies and they have some socialist programs. But the next time on of the Republicans shoves New Zealand down your throat point out that they were the first with the VAT TAX. That is the thing Republicans decided they wanted more than SS reform.

There are some areas of the economy like health care where a socialist program is the most cost efficient (even if you ignore the equity part). Health care is one of them. It just so happens that an ounce of prevention really works in terms of long term illnesses. Definitely not something that may be at the top of the agenda all the time if you were a pharmaceutical company selling one drug or another. But it is true.

[ProgressiveConn]

18. Well

I'd say that Sweden falls on the socialist side of of the welfare state. Granted they are Bernstienesque socialists and not Marxist-Leninists but still the ruling party is the Social Democrats who've more often than not held the position of ruling party.

As for Cuba you'll find that a good many people have good things to say about the way it distributes things. An entire nation with healthcare... They might not have much to distribute but they seem to be doing a better job than we are sometimes. Ignoring the authoritarian nature of the Cuban state.

Although I'm more comfortable being called a socialist than a capitalist I've figured out that the competition between socialistic (us-cooperation) and capitalistic (me-competition)impulses is a good thing. Finding the right balance between the two is a big part of us advancing as a civilization.

[mattclearing]

29. Amen to a balance of socialism and capitalism.

All I really want are sensible social safety nets to provide refuge to the people (the mentally ill/homeless) and necessities (health care) that cannot compete in the free market.

[applegrove]

31. Which means you are not socialist or pure neocon. Like all healthy

'realists' you are for a market economy with government intervention to solve the issues the market will fail at: like health care.

I get so tired of the word socialist being thrown around. I agree that Sweden & New Zealand are complete market economies. They have a mix of regulations and tools for those markets (health care, education, etc.)to improve the equity & transparency & ability of the state to meet the needs of the people. But they are Market economies. Liberal Democracies. As is the United States.

There really is only one socialist in the pile: Cuba.

Just because a political party has the word "social" or "socialist" in its name does not not not mean that they want to turn the country socialists. The socialist party in Canada has been elected in every province and they always rule as Liberal Democrats and respect the market. They are certainly more open to studying inequalities and making sure that things are very progressive (forced days off for doctors to save money on the civil service for example) when cutbacks had to be made. But they respect the laws of the market and try very hard to improve the economy.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kaho]

24. The leaders of Sweden and New Zealand would disagree...

...and - don't get me wrong - I'm saying that communism and socialism are close cousins. Both systems are closely related.

"Socialism - if you build it, they will leave." Muravchik 1999

...and it is the inter-marriage of these two ideologies that paralyses the left in democratic states.

Tony Blair of the UK thus promised a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. How honest that promise was remains to be seen - but the fact is he and his Labour Party will beat the Tories (Conservatives) in this years elections.

A lesson for the USA Democratic left perhaps?

[mattclearing]

16. Really? I always thought it meant moving the human narrative forward.

Like JFK calling his shot to the moon.

FDR's New Deal.

The Civil Rights Acts (if not the movement).

These are the kinds of things only Democrats will do.

The question is, what do we do next? And how to communicate it?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Sounds like an exam, to me! However, here goes:

There are a great many issues that are important to me; I can only discuss a couple of them.
Having a clean, unpolluted environment, with intact, undisturbed wilderness is vital to all people, not just Americans. Why? Take mercury in the water. It's a poison. It occurs naturally, of course, but our primary source is from coal-burning power plants that don't have proper scrubbing equipment to keep it out of our air. When it's rained out of the air into our watersheds and our fish, we can (and do) ingest it. It's very toxic to our unborn and young children. Adults can also be harmed by it.
We also need to protect our environment by requiring the auto manufacturers to greatly increase gas mileage. Two of the more important consequences are: Lower fuel costs (because of lower demand), and the preservation of the wild places where oil can often be found.
We also need our wild places just as they are. They are refuges, not just for the wild creatures that inhabit them, but for us also. And for our souls.

[mattclearing]

7. Very nice.

Because there is no greater humbling force than nature.

Coal and oil are already on the way out, and the sooner we find a viable alternative, the more likely we are to avoid a nasty global struggle to squeeze the last remaining fossil fuels out of the planet.

Maybe it's time we started really seriously thinking about energy alternatives for everything?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. Tasteblind,

thank you for responding! And so positively, too...I do believe it's almost past time to consider energy alternatives for everything. You can't do it too soon, IMHO. For example, we need to find alternatives for the common plastic bag. Every time I use one (and I re-use them, too), I wonder what they'll be made out of when the oil is gone. And the list goes on...

[mattclearing]

14. No problem. I just want people to be thinking about it.

Seems like our Party has been duped into taking the progress out of progressivism.

We need to start making a bulletproof, common sense, rational, and yet passionate, case for the world we want to live in.

That's the only way we'll get the chance to enjoy it.

[Kinkistyle]

6. Cities like New York, San Fran, Paris, Berlin, Boston, Geneva, etc..

Big cities with lots of people of different nationalities, cultures, ideas, races and genders are close to what ideal Democratic societies should be like.

Some more than others.

[mattclearing]

10. Gotta love that.

DC is a fantastic city with people from all over the world, and that's one of my favorite things about it.

Little wonder we voted 90% to 9 for Kerry.

[flaminbats]

8. nothing partisan..

http://www.merseyworld.com/imagine/lyrics/imagine.htm

but wait..isn't that copyrighted?

[mattclearing]

12. Nothing partisan...tell that the Clear Channel.

Seems to me that was a tell on their part, when they put Imagine on the "do not play" list after September 11.

People were like, "What the hell does that have to do with anything?"

Now it seems like a shrewd move in retrospect.

They are trying to erase the 90's, the 60's, and the 40's.

We can't let that happen.

Fantastic sentiment, and yes, I'd say that's as fine of an assertion of liberalism as has ever been made.

[flaminbats]

17. any true liberal is not an idealist..

"Ecclesiastes 6
1There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men:
2A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.
3If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.
4For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness.
5Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.
6Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?
7All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.
8For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living?
9Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit.
10That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he.
11Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, what is man the better?
12For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?"

[mattclearing]

27. But any true idealist is not a conservative.

I guess the Bible isn't as much of a copyright hazard, is it?

[flaminbats]

32. Republicans believe in a perfect world..

no laws, no problems, and no evil. mankind always does the right thing.

[cornfedyank]

9. hobbit houses all around...

edit: if we have to have a king, let it be a benign king

[ProgressiveConn]

19. Since you asked...

A heavily federated global democratic union based on socially progressive and economically populist ideals...

Though I'd settle for our elections being fair, our government being transparent, government protecting our freedoms not infringing upon them. I'd need our people well educated, in good health, with enough food and a roof over their heads. Anymore than that and I'm just being greedy. =)

[mattclearing]

26. See, I don't think that would be such a bad thing, but...

A lot of people see a federated world as something that could be thwarted and taken over by people with malicious intent.

Think of a group like the BFEE getting ahold of the World government.

Once the World government is taken over, you're kinda screwed, lest someone secede, which would still be ugly.

I'd settle for fair elections as well...then the rest would likely follow.

[Selatius]

21. The ideal world I envision would be patterned on libertarian socialism

I think it would be a great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism">model to strive for. We may or may not reach that level in our lifetimes, but I think it'd be something worth fighting for. I'd be willing to struggle for this.

[kaho]

22. ..libertarian socialism sounds like an oxymoron to me....

...although if you can provide a living, breathing example I'd be interested.

[mattclearing]

30. "Socialism? That's not in the Constitution," said the Libertarian. n/t

[Selatius]

35. Odd that you bring up oxymoron.

If you read in the link I provided, the issue was hit upon over and over again throughout the decades. Here:

Criticisms of libertarian socialism

A common criticism, made both by non-socialist libertarians and by non-libertarian socialists, is that a free market will spontaneously arise unless it is suppressed by force. Typically, non-socialist libertarians believe that a capitalist economy is natural, rather than artificial, so it would naturally develop in the absence of regulating factors. Thus they argue that a truly socialist libertarianism would be an oxymoron. Conversely, non-libertarian socialists don't want a capitalist economy to develop, so they insist on maintaining the state (often in an altered form) to prevent this.

The libertarian socialists disagree with both groups of critics, instead arguing that a socialist society can develop and endure without coercion. They claim that far from spontaneously arising in the absence of suppression, capitalist economic relations actually require active political suppression in the form of property law that is enforced either by a state or (as in anarcho-capitalism) by a private enforcement agency. There are few, if any, libertarian socialists who think that violence should play an institutional role in a future society. Some anarchists, who have been called anarcho-pacifists, reject violence altogether. Thus, they claim that it is a straw-man to suggest that libertarian socialists would violently restrict voluntary economic relations between individuals in the absence of a state. Rather, they believe that capitalist economic relations require public or private enforcement because they are involuntary themselves, thus resistance against private property enforcement is a form of defense.

Please keep in mind there is a difference between state socialism (democratic or authoritarian state socialism) and anarcho-socialism (aka libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism).

A working example that still exists today is the Zapatista rebels in Chiapas, Mexico. A historic example could be the anarcho-syndicalist communities that sprang up in the power vacuum of the Spanish Civil War. Unfortunately, they came into conflict with fascists backed by Hitler and authoritarian socialists backed by Stalin and were eventually crushed when the fascists came to power.

[me b zola]

36. Sounds interesting, I will have to do more reading on the subject.

I believe that food, shelter(a home), & health care should be a right, not a privilege. I like the thought of melding capitalism & socialism. The least privileged will be afforded dignity and basic human rights. Beyond that, more comfortable lifestyles will be gained according to your ability to earn.

Respect for our Constitution & the rule of law, this of course means getting back to the separation of church & State. This being said, politicians will not pervert religion or spirituality to use as a weapon to divide the Nation & it's people. Respect for science & logic in public schools. We have churches to worship anyway you wish.

Big business and government will once again be accountable to the public. Large tariffs on business who outsource, bring our jobs back home. Encouragement of small, local business that promotes economic healthy communities.

Celebration of diversity of thought, culture, & lifestyles.
Accessibility to political office for Joe Citizen.
Military more like Canada's. Able to defend ourselves, not aggressive.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[info being]

39. Read Chomsky

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Pushed To The Left]

34. A land of personal freedom

that is also free of poverty. The crime rate would be way down, and Americans would be more positive and hopeful because they would all have a fair shot. Vice laws would be a thing of the past, which would take the criminal element out of those areas. Drug abuse would be handled as a health issue rather than a legal one. Not only would the government not interfere with the personal freedom of individuals, they would enforce personal freedom by stopping those with private power (employers, landlords, etc) from interfering with the personal freedom of individuals they have power over. All people would have equal rights, including the right to vote and get married. The electoral college would be a thing of the past, allowing all people to vote for President. America would have a strong military, but would only use it if absolutely necessary.

[mattclearing]

37. I like this.

Tell me, does the Government protect the individual from retaliation for exercising free speech in this scenario?

I've always wondered if it was viable to try to make free speech unpunishable.

Particularly in instances where there is power involved. Kinda like sexual harassment.

It seems people are all about tolerance until its time to tolerate someone else's conflicting ideas.

[Pushed To The Left]

54. Free speech

I read quite some time ago about a conservative rapper named TRQ who lost his job as a file clerk due to his rap act. While I didn't agree with his politics, it really bothered me that he was being penalized for exercising his free speech rights off the clock. In my scenario, all Americans would have the same free speech rights regardless of how much money or power they had.

[info being]

38. The person-centered society

I'll boldly suggest that the movement can be summarized with a simple concept:

"The Person-Centered Society."

Everything we are fighting for falls under this umbrella: a better quality of life, individual freedom, justice, individual opportunity, education, health care, and the environment. Even the Green movement will gain momentum when it is tied back to the concept of the Person-Centered Society. Let me explain.

The pitch would go something like this:

"For too long, you've been forced to live in a world that is increasingly unlivable. Jobs are going away, wages are falling, good education is more expensive, and so much of what makes life worth living is being destroyed.

That's because Republicans have created a Corporation-Centered Society...a society where people are not only ruled by corporations in their professional lives, but where the government can only pass legislation that is approved by corporations. The bottom line is that, in a Republican-controlled America, when it is a choice between the bottom line and you...the bottom line wins every time.

It is time for a Person-Centered Society. A society that is designed around the needs of human beings. Where quality of life is more important than productivity. Where your family's safety is more important than a corporation's desire to pollute. Where your children's opportunity to live up to his or her potential is more important than expensive military misadventures. Where freedom of choice and freedom of expression cannot be encroached upon for any reason. In short, its time for a society designed around the idea of creating a world and is everlasting and worth living in."

I'm not talking about a Democratic Party message here...but a vision for all of us to believe in.

[mattclearing]

40. THAT is something I can get behind.

And while you may not think it is a Democratic Party message, I think it would be a hell of a great way to begin working the Democratic Party away from the corporate servitude they have been involved in of late.

You are absolutely right though, the rights of the individual should absolutely trump the rights of the corporation, especially when most individuals have so much less money and power than corporations.

This will go over extremely well with people who are appalled by the way manufacturers and the health care industry, much less the federal government, treat life like a commodity, some worth more than others.

[info being]

41. It won't go over though

I posted it in a thread at DU and nobody liked the idea. They thought, "gee, it doesn't sound community-centered enough..."

I guess I was talking about a message that would resonate. People are selfish and care about personal benefits. You have to speak the language of benefits:

"Clean air makes your family healthier."
"If you are wronged by a corporation, you need a right to fight back."
"You should get to decide what kind of community you live in, not corporations."
"Your family should be able to get healthcare, corporate profits be damned."
"You should be able to make your own decisions about your own sex life."
"You should have a guaranteed secure retirement."
"You live in the richest country in the world, you shouldn't need to worry so much about money."

I could go on and on. Its a very easy formula. It goes right to the individual ego and riles up authentic populism. It challenges the Corporate Order.

That's what I'd fight for.

[mattclearing]

42. Brilliant.

And yet this is what Al Gore got pilloried for after giving his self-penned nomination speech in 2000: class warfare.

I'm all for class warfare. God knows they've been fighting it against us for forty years.

[info being]

43. The only people who have a problem with class warfare...

Are people who are winning the class war.

We shouldn't go down the trap of calling it class warfare. Remember, its about a person-centered society as opposed to a corporate-centered society. Which means, corporations are tolerated as long as the fulfill the needs of the person.

Who could argue with that? That's called framing the debate.

[mattclearing]

45. That's an excellent way to put it.

Who could argue, indeed.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NotYourPresident]

44. We are never going to know until people wake up and stand up

It is ridiculous the things that go on, are GOING ON, and the streets are not filled with Americans fed up with it already.

This week in elementary schools alone:

mandatory school identification badges with RFID chips (CA)
police install "live feed" video surveillance in high schools (IN)

You MUST read these stories...

Is there any wonder democracy erodes by the day? A study released three weeks ago reported that high school students thought it should be illegal to publish the news without Presidential approval.

Hello? What country are they growing up in?

This article on WiserBlog greatly depressed me and left me nearly speechless I have to say. How can these things be going on in the US without challenge, protest? To narrow the scope a bit, these RFID chips are frightening and there's lots of "good" stuff on this blog about it. This is not conspiracy theory. This is not "prediction." This is real, it is happening. And we are letting it. I couldn't figure out how to replicate the hyperlinks in the Mayberry article itself, but there are links to each of the very real policies and programs being implemented.

But you know...

"This is not Mayberry." That was one parent's excuse for why it was A-OK to implemement the badge-tracking program in CA.

"This is not Mayberry."

First they chipped the "foreigners"... (US-VISIT)
and I didn't care because
how else are you going to know which ones are terrorists?

Then they chipped the small children (anti-kidnapping gadgetry)
and I didn't care because
how can you expect parents to watch their own children?

Then they chipped the older children (school IDs)
and I didn't care because
you can't trust kids nowadays

Then they chipped consenting adults (medical records, Registered Traveler, passports)
and I didn't care because
it was voluntary after all

Then they developed more and more uses for the chip
and I didn't care because
hey, you can't stop progress

Then they told me everyone else had a chip
and I didn't care because
I didn't want one

Then they wanted to know why I didn't want one
and I cared because
it didn't sound voluntary anymore.

Then they told me that it wasn't...

My apologies to Pastor Niemoller for the clumsy adaptation of his quote, but it was difficult to resist. Readers of this column know that something I find quite disturbing is the lack of oversight in the development and use of radio frequency identification (RFID) chips. The chips were recently cleared by the FDA for "sudermal" use; but whether they are being injected into human triceps or “only” embedded in identification cards, people ought to be paying closer attention to their use.

Last week, amid parental protests, a California public school, Brittan Elementary School, implemented use of RFID chips on school grounds to identify and track children. This is not the first time that the chips have been used in school IDs here in the United States. In 2003, the Enterprise Charter School in Buffalo, New York implemented use of chip-embedded badges for their students and staff. And last November, the Spring Independent School District (TX) equipped 28,000 students with similar ID badges to read when they get on and off school buses.

However, in light of House passage of H.R. 418 (REAL ID Act of 2005) (also last week), the issue of mandatory identification cards takes on new significance. It is my hope that it will trigger closer scrutiny as well. Certainly there ought to be some public debate.—of course the same can be said of H.R. 418 itself.

Brittan Elementary students, like the kids in New York and Texas, will be wearing their chip-embedded badges around their necks on lanyards. While I believe that they may substitute their school-issued lanyards with ones bearing the image of Spongebob or Spiderman, the badge wearing is as compulsory as their attendance. Earnie Graham, who serves as the school's Principal and Superintendent, has made it clear that students could be disciplined if they refuse to wear the badges.

The Brittan badges were developed by InCom Corp., which paid the school to use the badges. The school will also receive royalties from sales if other schools adopt the system. And why not? Isn't that how it works for The Carlyle Group (they have their own RFID contracts with the military through subsidiary Matrics (now Symbol))? Industrial-complexes should not just be for the big guns... we really should nurture such entrepreneurial ventures.

Meanwhile, as for the objections to the RFID badges? Says Superintendent Graham, "You know what it comes down to? I believe junior high students want to be stylish. not stylish."

If Principal Graham believes that that is all ‘it comes down to” well, his beliefs might help explain why the country's school children aren't learning what a democracy is. (See “ALTYMETER: It's Not Illegal To Criticize The Bush Administration, You Know,” February 7, 2005) Not that their parents, apparently, have any better idea these days. While it’s true that some parents are protesting, many see nothing wrong with the badge tracking. Explains Tim Crabtree, one local parent, "This is not Mayberry. This is Sutter, California. Bad things can happen here."

No, it's not Mayberry, Tim, and it looks like bad things are happening there.

* Note: Last week it was also reported that the Valparaiso (Indiana) Police Department is now set up to monitor "live feeds" from surveillance cameras at Valparaiso High School. All in all, I’d say it’s been a pretty bad couple of weeks for privacy rights. Can there be any doubt that these dress rehearsals in the areas that there are fewer constitutional obstacles (minors, noncitizens, voluntary activities) reveal what is in store for the rest of us?

WiserBlog.com © Copyright 2005

[mattclearing]

46. Yeah, HR 418 is scary as hell.

FYI, DU has a rule about only posting 4 paragraphs of copyrighted material unless it is your own.

It truly is terrifying what these people are trying to accomplish. This isn't any game. They are playing for all the marbles, and it will take a long time to undo the damage they do when it all shakes out.

People need to start pushing in other directions. Resistance hasn't gotten us anywhere so far.

Setting our own goals, which are obviously more desirable than where they are taking us, seems to be the best course of action.

Given a choice between our perfect world and theirs, ours will win every time. We just haven't been making the case very well.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Mr.Green93]

47. It would be nice

if there were not white hegemony.

[mattclearing]

60. True.

But it would be nicer if we could cut through the black and white divisions to get to the real dividing lines in this country of class and political influence.

In fact, I find that race is a major stumbling block in the way that people relate injustice in this country. After all, there is always a black Republican, such as Lt. Governor Steele from Maryland, to pop up out of the woodwork and defend Republicans from charges of insensitivity, just as Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas have inoculated the Bush family from charges of racism.

But it is beyond debate to say that the Republican Party and the Bush family are malevolent toward the poor.

[bmovies]

48. The parties..

...which exist at present and which draw their profits from the State as it now is cannot be expected to bring about a radical change in the regime or to change their attitude on their own initiative. This is rendered all the more impossible because the forces which now have the direction of affairs in their hands are conservatives here and conservatives there and conservatives everywhere. The trend of development which we are now experiencing would, if allowed to go on unhampered, lead to the realization of the conservative prophecy that the conservatives will one day devour the other nations and become lords of the earth.

If we would transform our ideal picture of a Democratic world into a reality we shall have to keep independent of the forces that now control public life and seek for new forces that will be ready and capable of taking up the fight for such an ideal. For a fight it will have to be, since the first objective will not be to build up the idea of the Democratic world but rather to wipe out the conservative state which is now in existence. As so often happens in the course of history, the main difficulty is not to establish a new order of things but to clear the ground for its establishment. Prejudices and egotistic interests join together in forming a common front against the new idea and in trying by every means to prevent its triumph, because it is disagreeable to them or threatens their existence.

A doctrine whose principles are radically new and of essential importance must adopt the sharp probe of criticism as its weapon, though this may show itself disagreeable to the individual followers.

An existing order of things is not abolished by merely proclaiming and insisting on a new one. It must not be hoped that those who are the partisans of the existing order and have their interests bound up with it will be converted and won over to the new movement simply by being shown that something new is necessary.

For the conservative philosophy is intolerant and cannot permit another to exist side by side with it. It imperiously demands its own recognition as unique and exclusive and a complete transformation in accordance with its views throughout all the branches of public life.

The Democratic world is not an instrument for class warfare, but a representative organ of the various occupations and callings. The Democratic world recognizes no 'classes'. But, under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto. And, side by side with these, it recognizes subjects of the state who currently have no political rights whatsoever.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mattclearing]

58. The interesting dilemma you present...

...is that an ideal democratic world involves tolerance for the same conservative establishment that is said democratic world's sworn enemy.

After all, an ideal democracy is built on tolerance for ideas, even ideas that have little basis in reality and exist only to reinforce established racial and class structures.

That clash of ideas must come, and must be sustained and continued and the case continually made for a progressive movement.

That is what was meant by Wendell Phillips when he said that, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

The problem right now is that we have been lulled to sleep by a seemingly successful Clinton Administration that allowed corporations to co-opt our party machinery and representatives, and attempt to re-define what it is our Party stands for.

That must be undone and is being undone. The struggle continues...

[leyton]

55. We had the messenger, but we didn't nominate him.

Edwards is the perfect standard-bearer for the party. The Republicans found George W. Bush to present their vision, and nobody seemed to mind that his record was thin. Edwards is the perfect spokesperson for us, and were it not for 9/11 I believe we would have nominated and elected him.

The America I envision is not terribly unlike the America we have now. The difference is that the poor are not ignored. They are not disenfranchised, they are given a voice in politics and make good use of it. The government encourages competition in business, but does not forsake the poor, does not permit destruction of the nation's resources, and does not send our troops abroad unless it's absolutely necessary. All the Republicans are like Arnie Vinnick, all the Democrats are like Jed Bartlet (or Matt Santos).

[mattclearing]

59. And that is why the West Wing is/has been successful.

It shows us the world as we would like to believe it to be. I think that is a positive thing.

Sadly, our leaders both present and past cannot live up to the kind of leadership that the fictional President and his possible successors seem to embody.

The reality is quite a bit less inspiring, if a bit more entertaining at times.

I agree that the poor should not be ignored. I think a reasonable safety net should exist to prevent premature death and starvation, and to care for the mentally ill who cannot care for themselves.

[YvonneCa]

56. "Begin with the End in Mind"...

...in the words of Stephen Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People." Habit 2 -- Begin with the End in Mind

"What it Means
•To begin with the end in mind is to begin with the image of the end of your life as the frame of reference by which everything else is measured.
•We may be busy, we may be efficient, but we will only be effective if we begin with the end in mind.

All Things are Created Twice
Habit 2 is based on the principle that all things are created twice:
o a mental or first creation
o a physical or second creation
Most endeavors that fail, fail with the first creation.

By Design or Default
There is a first creation to every part of our lives. We are either the second creation of our own proactive creation, or we are the second creation of other people's agendas, or circumstances…"



Tasteblind,you said you want to work more effectively.
My thoughts:

1. I agree that the Democrats should be winning. We have a better message. We Democrats have allowed Republicans to create us, by default, according to their agenda. We need to focus on our message and getting it out to the American people. In recent speeches to the DNC Bill Clinton and John Edwards have both made a good start at doing this. I believe the American people are smarter than the results of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections demonstrate. They made poor choices because of lack of information.

2. If we clarify our message, the correct messenger will become apparent to us. I have supported Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Wesley Clark. I think all would make an excellent President. There may be other messengers. The one I vote for will be the one that carries the message well.

3. I believe in a vision of our country as the leader in a very interdependent world. Our example as a diverse country shows the rest of the world the possibilities that can be if we work together in peace. To do so, we need to be transparently the best that we can be whether the issue is war and peace, finance, human rights, or the way we conduct democracy in our own country and around the world. To use the words of a great President (Clinton), our goal should be:

“I believe it's to build a world that moves beyond interdependence to an integrated global community of shared responsibilities, shared benefits and shared values. ‘

“Indeed, the whole course of human history can be seen as a constant struggle to expand the definition of who is ''us'' and shrink the definition of who is ''them.'' From the dawn of time until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was never really possible to build a global community of cooperation, in which we celebrate, not just tolerate, our diversity, on the simple theory that our differences make life interesting, but our common humanity matters more. “

4. Specifically, we must show we value all humanity. We value children, and their future (education, health care). We value civil rights for all (free, transparent, fair elections, inclusiveness). We stand for peace around the world (by example, and with our policy toward other countries).

5. I do think we can "chew gum and walk at the same time", so we can work on many issues at once. But to do so, we need Democrats elected, and with our election process broken, election reform should be a first priority.

:-)

[mattclearing]

61. I may have to look into Covey's work.

That sounds like excellent advice.

You are absolutely right about election reform. There is simply no excuse for our presidential election systems to be in doubt.

Sadly, I still haven't seen a proposed election system that doesn't involve some element of trust, that can't be subverted somehow.

But I would rather fix the system and deal with the problems that come, not unlike with campaign finance reform. The system requires tweaking, and eventually it will require tweaking again when the usual suspects find their way around to subverting it.

I agree with what you have said about "Us" and "Them." One of the truly great things that Bill Clinton did was to get Americans thinking about being global citizens, members of a coalition of nations that would at least consider, and attempt to correct, injustices elsewhere in the world.

The day after September 11th, Le Monde ran its editorial, "We Are All Americans." It was an acknowledgment of the grief of those who had been attacked, a statement of solidarity.

Americans need to be persuaded that we are all citizens of Earth, and start adjusting our thinking accordingly.

I think a lot of the excuse-making for the plight of Muslims, and the way our policies affect real people with real hopes, dreams, ambitions, families, love and life, all of it would die out pretty quickly if people were shown the consequences of our government's actions, and our inactions.

To that end, creating alternative media that shows the realities, both positive and negative, of American influence, should be among our highest priorities.

I would also suggest that we begin to think of ourselves as Humans first, and Americans second.

Such would be the first step in joining the rest of the World in a good-faith effort towards true progress.

[YvonneCa]

62. Amen ! n/t